Offshore Wind Energy

Offshore wind development is being sought in the U.S. as a renewable energy source to mitigate climate change by reducing the use of carbon-emitting energy sources.

As sustainable users of the ocean ecosystem, RODA and our members know the importance of addressing climate change. Unfortunately, offshore wind development is not a silver bullet without its own detrimental impacts.

RODA and the fishing industry stand willing to use our knowledge about ocean ecosystems to create innovative, effective solutions for climate and environmental change. There are opportunities for mutual wins, however, offshore wind development is an ocean use that directly conflicts with fishing and primary food production, while imposing significant impacts on marine habitats, biodiversity, and physical oceanography.

Proposals for, and interest in, new development of the U.S. offshore environment are increasing at an extraordinary pace. The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) has leased numerous sites in New England and Mid-Atlantic for offshore wind energy facilities, with additional sites proposed in the Atlantic and Pacific. Further leasing is underway for sand and gravel extraction, offshore aquaculture, and other uses. Because these activities often directly conflict with traditional and historic fishing practices, decision processes could be significantly improved with regard to effectively engaging fishing communities and considering the needs of the commercial fishing industry. Permitting authorities must thoroughly consider advice from the industry, NMFS, state fishery management agencies, and the regional fishery management councils, and pay greater attention to the scientific research necessary to properly plan, site, operate, and mitigate such projects.

Impact Reduction

IMPACT FEES FOR COMMERCIAL FISHING FROM OFFSHORE WIND DEVELOPMENT: CONSIDERATIONS FOR A NATIONAL FRAMEWORK

United States fishermen, and those in industries dependent on fishing, strongly value continuity of their businesses and ability to produce sustainable, low-carbon protein. There is deep concern that the seafood industry and fishing communities will be enormously disrupted by the myriad of unknown impacts, and unknown scales of impacts, from offshore wind energy development.

RODA worked with a large cross section of fishing industry members to develop the guidelines, best practices and factors for consideration regarding impact fees for the seafood industry from offshore wind energy development.

RODA’s report primarily focuses on impact fees assessed on the offshore wind energy industry to compensate for losses to the fishing industry and communities from development—i.e., the final “step” of impact reduction.

Goals for Collaboration

As the lead agency of leasing and permitting offshore wind development projects, BOEM must improve the processes for addressing impacts to fisheries, coastal communities, and research. Here is a list of collaborative opportunities to improve existing approaches to offshore wind development.

• Conduct a Programmatic EIS (PEIS) for each region where OSW development is anticipated;
  • The 2007 PEIS BOEM alleges as sufficient for this purpose covers the entire U.S. yet contains only just over six pages describing impacts to fisheries and six scientific citations. In 2007, Department of Energy-sponsored research showed that only three OSW projects existed globally, all in waters shallower than 20 m, and 5-megawatt turbines were just entering the market.
  • Other ocean experts are echoing calls for a PEIS, including prominent environmental organizations.
• Institute an inclusive and holistic planning process for OSW akin to BOEM’s five-year plans for oil and gas;
• Define thresholds above which environmental impacts from early projects would be deemed unacceptable and how adaptive management will be implemented;
• Require permits for geological and geophysical surveys, conduct NEPA analysis on a cumulative scale for such permits, and evaluate/address environmental impacts already incurred;
• Conduct transparent energy, economic, cost, and greenhouse gas emissions analyses for BOEM’s OSW goals and individual projects, as required by NEPA;
• Include project decommissioning as part of NEPA review and provide public information on decommissioning practices and environmental effects;
• Require materials to be removed at the end of a project’s life, including bonding sufficient to cover all decommissioning costs and assignment if a lease is transferred; 
• Improve use of fisheries data in analyses, including overreliance on Automated Information Systems (AIS) given their extremely limited use by fishing vessels;
• Prohibit turbines in sensitive habitats including spawning areas and high-value fishing grounds (in terms of the overall economy, local dependence, or ecological importance); and
• Fully implement the precautionary principle including setbacks from important spawning/habitat areas.

• Provide regional fishery management council representation on regional task forces in accordance with their “federal agency” status under multiple statutes;
• Eliminate the use of “unsolicited bids” as requested by fishing experts and only site OSW projects through inclusive public processes;
• Announce comment periods and other matters of public interest in the Federal Register, with sufficient factual information, rather than through pro-wind press releases;
• Enforce ethics rules preventing former federal employees and officials hired by OSW developers from influencing agency processes;
• Provide transparent information and clarify what information is deemed confidential, rather than issuing blanket redactions and withholding key project details from the public;
• Work with RODA to provide shoreside and on-the-water project information through a centralized information repository in formats accessible to fishermen, which currently does not exist;
• Improve communications with fishermen using culturally appropriate methods and avoiding condescension;
• Coordinate regular two-way communication meetings with fishing industry leaders in all regions;
• Avoid relying on developers’ assertions about fisheries engagement and positions of fishing communities, including the fallacy that persons within the fishing industry supported a 1×1 mile grid turbine layout without transit lanes in the Southern New England lease areas; and
• Convene fewer, more impactful meetings.

• Perform science-based cumulative effects reviews of proposed safe transit areas through lease areas
  • This includes the 1400 square mile New England complex, which USCG indicates was not approached cumulatively and did not utilize fishing vessel data.
• Evaluate mitigation measures for radar interference from turbines to marine radar and require all possible measures to minimize it, including those that would change OSW project designs not just fishing practices.
• Require deicing technology and practices.
• Include fishermen in developing effective navigational aids such as lighting and markings.

• Partner with affected fishing industry members to create inclusive, and predictable plans for distributing impact fees after avoiding and mitigating all possible impacts through siting and design;
• Require standardized, neutrally arbitrated processes for gear loss claims;
• Ensure that any economic benefits of offshore wind accrue to the U.S.—not at some undetermined point in the future, but now;
• Support the fishing industry in creating vessel registries to better understand and equitably distribute any promised opportunities associated with OSW;
• Oversee reasonable licensing requirements for fishing vessels performing research or other tasks for developers; 
• Include fishing industry needs in plans for port development; and
• Analyze and fully consider the complex relationship between “environmental justice” and the fishing industry to maintain coastal community diversity.

• Mandate sufficient cable burial depths and provide information to the public on how depths are determined; 
• Require real-time cable monitoring technology to ensure rapid alerts if a hazard develops;
• Perform “micrositing” of turbines and cables with fishermen who know the ecosystem; and
• Coordinate transmission to minimize and optimize infrastructure placed in the water and seabed.

• Monitor fisheries impacts for the life of projects;
• Resolve and fund impacts to NMFS fishery-independent surveys (while BOEM announced a “programmatic mitigation approach,” it is unfunded and without any discernible action plan);
• Thoroughly assess cumulative impacts of OSW to whales and other protected resources, including all project phases and components and impacts to migration and food availability;
• Increase cooperative research funding and develop study programs based on fishermen’s research priorities;
• Expand NMFS review authority over project monitoring plans and Essential Fish Habitat consultations;
• Conduct species-specific studies to those which may experience unique impacts ( e.g. horseshoe crab, conch, etc.); and
• Require coordination of fisheries research and monitoring plans between developers.